Revisar solicitação de recorrência Pix Automático

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool's write nature is known. The description adds the context that adjustments are allowed only while the state permits, but does not elaborate on potential side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two succinct sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool modifying a single field, the description covers the essential context (purpose, timing). However, it could explicitly state that only status can be set to 'CANCELADA' to avoid ambiguity. Output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both params described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not mention that status can only be 'CANCELADA'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'reviews allowed fields' and 'adjusts the request', indicating an update operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pix_detail_request_recurrence_automatic by focusing on modification, but does not explicitly list which fields are modifiable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage condition: 'while the state allows, before final authorization'. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but in context of siblings, it is positioned as the update tool for this specific resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.